Mystery of the Missing Images: where in the world did 60,000 photos go?
Since the solutions available to save and organize photos seem infinite in today’s digital world, we usually don’t find ourselves losing images–unless we forget to save, backup or have a damaged card.
Certainly professionals entrusting a stock agency with their images have nothing to worry about. For, they pay or enter into a contract arrangement for their images to be organized and protected like the FDIC. Right?
Well, not exactly. It may depend on your birthday. Enter those who began using stock agencies in the 1970s when analog pics, known as slides or transparencies (to the younger folk), were as “in” as cell phone texting is now.
Many of these predigital snappers have now found themselves stuck in a stock purgatory…looking for lost conventional images somewhere between what images were and what images are. And while this may engender existential questions like, ‘if you can’t ever touch a digital image again does it still exist?’, pro shooters Chris Usher and Arthur Grace would say an image exists because it was captured by them.
Thousands upon thousands of images these guys took during the 70s, 80s and 90s of celebrities, politicians and high-profile news events were lost by Corbis and are now part of the MIA . Missing Images of Analog.
Grace and Usher, as well as many other pros which made the switch from traditional to digital, had made agreements in the 70s or 80s with Corbis, a stock agency privately held by Bill Gates since 1989.
Corbis admitted to losing thousands of Grace’s images but went to court to battle out the value of the images. Dissatisfied with a ruling of just under $500,000 for between 40,000 and 60,000 lost images, Grace appealed the judgment by a U.S. District Court. He was finally awarded $677,685: this breaks down to $300,960 for lost income in the past, $237,728 for interest on that amount, and $138,966 for lost furture income.
In Nov. 2007, it was determined that Usher should be awarded $157,121 for the loss of 12,640 of his images.
There are many other clients of Corbis and Sygma, the French stock agency Corbis bought in 1999, in this same time-warp continuum. A-list photographer, Michael Grecco, settled a similar case of lost transparencies with Corbis in 2000. Although these judgments may seems like a lot of bucks in one helping, they shooters would tell you it’s not worth it.
“It’s been a very long time, and all of those missing images were pretty much selects and I’m very sad not to have them,” Usher told News Photographer magazine after the trial ended.
“Regardless of what they are worth - the money is nice but I’d rather have the pictures back - and a lot of the pictures were of [George] Bush, and [Al] Gore, and the campaign of the century that was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, and it was all on film. I worked hard on that material; I know what was there because I see the outs, and I’m so sad that there’s so much of it that’s missing,” Usher added.
Can money ever really compensate image makers for blocks of history stamped out of their career timeline like photographic amnesia? Missing are original portraits of celebrities, White House documentations, Pulitzer Prize image nominees, Parisian photos, global images.
I don’t know about you, but I want to know. . .
WHERE DID THEY GO?
WHO or WHAT IS USING THEM?
No one really asked this question in all the court documents I pored through. It is accepted that they are lost somewhere in a dustry drawer, a hanging file or whatever.
According to Usher’s lawyer: “After nearly a decade of litigating lost image cases against Corbis on behalf of photographers, we have yet to hear an explanation or excuse for any loss of any image by Corbis.” He went on to say: “one in every four historical or photojournalistic images entrusted to Corbis by Usher were lost by Corbis.”
Unbelievable.
Can these huge losses be explained by the static technology of yesteryear? Well, among other points, Usher’s judge determined “that there were serious deficiencies in Corbis’ tracking and storage practices…”
Similarly, in the Grace appeal, it stated that “Sygma had no adequate means of tracking the inventory of images entrusted to it by any of the photographers it represented. Apparently, Sygma never had a system to keep track of its New York inventory and, starting in 1977, only a limited means of tracking its Paris inventory.”
These shooters have been put through the emotional ringer. In addition to their loss, part of the monetary argument was contingent on proving the “uniqueness” of the missing photographs. I imagine it was difficult not to transfer that from the images to themselves and their craft.
To these guys, those images still exist somewhere, if not in their mind’s eye. Perhaps cyberspace is not such a bad place when you compare it to no place.
Let’s give the lost images a moment of silence.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
As the archivist who cataloged Chris Usher’s vast archive of analog images and prepared the document we call the “missing images list,” I first want to say THANK YOU ALYSHA for raising the question that all of us involved in all of these cases want to know… I would LOVE to say where I think the missing images are but since Mr. Usher’s case is in the process of an appeal, I cannot.
Suffice it to say that Mr. Usher and Mr. Grace (and many many other photographers who for various reasons have not been able to pursue legal action to get their images back) can never be adequately compensated for the loss of their personal property that they ENTRUSTED to an entity they believed was their agency.
Lest anyone think that these photographers have been adequately compensated, let me remind you that in Mr. Usher’s case, the first attempt to retrieve his images from Corbis occurred in December 2001. No images were received until AFTER legal counsel was retained in 2002. The trial commenced in June 2005, and final legal documents submitted in December 2005. While we waited for a decision, one of our two attorneys was diagnosed with, treated for and finally died from, ovarian cancer. In November 2007, Mr. Usher was told how many images the court found to be missing, but not what they were worth. In February 2008, SIX YEARS after starting the lawsuit, Mr. Usher was awarded what constitutes less than $10 per image.
If you have ever been involved in a lawsuit, as a plaintiff or a defendant, you know how consuming it is — financially, emotionally, and mentally. If you haven’t, let me tell you, it is like having a child with a life threatening disease. And I’m not even talking about the trial!
My last comment is about the court determined “serious deficiencies” in Corbis’ tracking system…
Riddle me this, Batman: “Does anyone else find it odd that the sole owner of Corbis is also the genius that gave us Excel, Access, Money, and all of the Business/Server applications that organize and track data of all kinds… including images, yet he availed himself of NONE of these resources in the operation of Corbis??”
Doubtful.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
As an attorney I have litigated (for over a decade) on behalf of several photographers whose work has dissappeared while in the hands of Corbis and/or stock agencies acquired by it. I represent Mr. Usher whose award has been appealed by us to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Grecco, Allan Tannenbaum and other well known photographers have also been represented by us in connection with Corbis related cases.
Everything Ms. DeArmas states above is of course, accurate.
With respect to Ms. Sideman’s piece, some comments are in order:
1. Corbis had never admitted to the loss of anyone’s photographic images until Chris Usher’s trial actually commenced did Corbis’ counsel admit to the loss of at least 8-9,000 images by his client. That “admission” came years after suit was filed.
2. Decisions of the District Courts in the United States, Southern District of New York have held Corbis to be negligent and do not cite any “admissions” by Corbis.
3. If one adds up the total number of missing/non-returned images of all of our clients since 1998 the number totals well over 250,000. In excess of 150,000 images were returned to our clients only upon retention of our firm and/or filing of litigation against Corbis.
4. All of our cases deal with historic or photojournalistic images. None of my clients nor any of my staff believes that (save for perhaps a few shots) the images were just “lost”. The decisions of the Courts in New York and Paris make no determination as to the whereabouts of the subject images.
5. I have spent thousands of hours in Corbis related matters and do not believe that all of the images were merely lost. No witness has ever ascertained the whereabouts of any missing image which remained missing after trial.
6. “Suspicion” does not equal evidence. In the Usher matter, the Court held that Corbis paperwork was so bad as to have it held against it. It is simply not credible or in the slightest bit believable that hundreds of thousands of images which departing photographers sought to have returned to them for licensing by other agencies, were merely “lost”.
We have written and lectured countless times throughout the US on this topic. We take great pains to note that once the images become “lost” they can not compete with any substantially similar images which Corbis may seek to market now or in the future.
In sum, I do not believe nor does anyone associated with these cases, whether litigated or otherwise, that these historical images were merely lost. The numbers are staggering and the claim not believable.
Edward C. Greenberg
570 Lexington Ave.
17th Fl
NYC NY 10022
April 14th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I appreciate the great comments and points. They help to further illuminate this enigmatic case.-ii editor
April 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Given the fact that Microsoft acquired the former Iviewmedia Pro (now called Expressions Media) which is a digital asset management software system I refuse to believe that Corbis did not have the capability to track and manage the so called thousands of “missing or lost” images. A stock agency engaged in the business of selling stock images has to be able to properly track and inventory the very assets it has chosen to represent and in this case, it is clear they failed to the point of negligence.
The paramount question to ask in the future is how much exactly is a single image worth prior to submitting such images to a stock agency? Does this open the door for photographers insuring such assets?
The only way to lessen such a tragedy from occurring in the future is for photographers to maintain a solid DAM (digital asset management) system which can clearly keep track of all their photographic image assets.
For those interested in learning more about such as system I encourage all to read the following book “The DAM Book” by Peter Krogh. The best 35 bucks I ever spend on my career.
Tony Sal
April 30th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
How do you shoot 60,000 pictures of Bush and Gore? How long does it take?
What in the world would Corbis want with 60,000 pictures of Bush and Gore,
Linday or Brittnay maybe.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Agree. Agree. Agree.